jcred.org Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development |

jcred.org
Title: Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development |
Keywords:
Description: Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development | Pages Navigation Menu Home News Issues Blog Subscribe About Membership Roster 2016-2017 Faculty Advisors Contact Us Categories Navigation Menu News B
jcred.org is ranked 17524451 in the world (amongst the 40 million domains). A low-numbered rank means that this website gets lots of visitors. This site is relatively popular among users in the united states. It gets 50% of its traffic from the united states .This site is estimated to be worth $6,736. This site has a low Pagerank(0/10). It has 1 backlinks. jcred.org has 43% seo score.

jcred.org Information

Website / Domain: jcred.org
Website IP Address: 184.171.251.130
Domain DNS Server: ns8.nixihost.com,ns7.nixihost.com

jcred.org Rank

Alexa Rank: 17524451
Google Page Rank: 0/10 (Google Pagerank Has Been Closed)

jcred.org Traffic & Earnings

Purchase/Sale Value: $6,736
Daily Revenue: $18
Monthly Revenue $553
Yearly Revenue: $6,736
Daily Unique Visitors 1,698
Monthly Unique Visitors: 50,940
Yearly Unique Visitors: 619,770

jcred.org WebSite Httpheader

StatusCode 200
Content-Type text/html; charset=UTF-8
Date Fri, 05 Aug 2016 12:30:38 GMT
Server Apache

jcred.org Keywords accounting

Keyword Count Percentage

jcred.org Traffic Sources Chart

jcred.org Similar Website

Domain Site Title

jcred.org Alexa Rank History Chart

jcred.org aleax

jcred.org Html To Plain Text

Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development | Pages Navigation Menu Home News Issues Blog Subscribe About Membership Roster 2016-2017 Faculty Advisors Contact Us Categories Navigation Menu News Blog Issues Previous Next Posted by Jennifer Flores on Feb 24, 2016 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby: The Dangers of Protecting First Amendment Rights of Corporations & The Rapid Expansion of “Corporate Personhood” by Katharine Suominen Imagine Occupy Wall Street protests break out again, but this time, the mayor directs the NYPD to let the protesters stay in various private public spaces, like the lobby of a corporate office building. Barclays decides that it does not want to risk bloody confrontations between its own security guards and the occupiers. Instead, it releases a specially programmed fleet of drones to direct air or sound at the occupiers until they leave the premises. New York’s city council then proposes legislation to ban the corporate use of drones. Barclays decides to challenge the ordinance as an unconstitutional restriction on its corporate right of self-defense. The Supreme Court agrees with the corporation and extends Second Amendment rights to all corporations. This hypothetical may seem dramatic and highly unlikely, but it is actually not that farfetched. In recent years, the Supreme Court has vastly expanded the constitutional rights of corporations. Traditionally, constitutional rights were reserved for individuals; however, over time courts began to consider corporations “persons,” a sort of legal fiction, and extend constitutional rights to them. This was the beginning of the legal concept known as “corporate personhood.” The Expansion of Corporate Personhood Corporate personhood began with the extension of contract rights to corporations, but corporate personhood slowly expanded as corporations received additional protections under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy protection, to name only a few. However, in a mere four years (2010-2014), the Supreme Court has given corporations unrestricted political speech rights and then, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, First Amendment religious freedom rights. And there is no indication that the Court intends to stop, or even slow, the expansion of corporate personhood. The American legal concept of “corporate personhood” has its supporters and critics alike. On the one hand, supporters of corporate personhood embrace the aggregate theory of corporate personhood, which argues that the corporation is more than just a creature of law. Instead the corporation is representative of the people who make up the corporation because corporations themselves cannot literally “act” or “decide” or “intend” apart from their human members. On the other hand, critics of expansive corporate personhood follow the artificial entity theory, which argues that the corporation is merely a legal construct, a fictional entity, or an artificial creation of the natural persons who form the corporation for their own purposes. The corporation is simply a creature of statute and is dependent on the law to... Read More Posted by Jennifer Flores on Feb 17, 2016 American Society and Gun Control by Thomas C. Giordano In recent years, Americans have been murdered in mass shootings at an alarming and increasing rate. While mass shootings are always devastating, regrettably, they are nothing new to Americans. Gun violence actually seems to be an accepted part of American culture. In the wake of a mass shooting, there is sadness. Following this sadness is outrage and almost always a call for reform. Unfortunately, nothing ever actually happens. The horrific event is over, and the news picks up the next compelling story that grips the nation. People move on. That is, everybody except the victims’ loved ones. There has been some federal legislation over the last century aimed at restricting access to guns, but not much. One reason for this is that gun legislation is often passed in response to shooting tragedies, which occur sporadically and do not affect entire groups of people on a daily basis. Therefore, it is difficult to apply sustained political pressure for change. Another challenge is the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence. The Supreme Court’s broad interpretation of the Second Amendment has made it almost impossible to tighten gun laws. However, as illustrated by the Civil Rights movement, the American people possess great power in influencing the law. Supreme Court decisions and jurisprudence can change when society demands that change. The legal system will rarely act without the support of the people. Thus, persistence in a grassroots gun control movement will eventually provide enough support to effectuate legal change. Recent History of Gun Violence in America Since 2000, mass shootings have increasingly occurred with more frequency. This is illustrated by the FBI Active Shooter List—an FBI investigation authorized by President Obama in 2012 and completed by 2013 that studied violent acts and mass shootings in public places in America. The List shows that from 2000-2013, the number of mass shootings per year nearly tripled. In the fourteen years studied, there were 160 active shooter incidents, resulting in the deaths of 486 people and the wounding of another 557. These types of shootings are actually on the rise. In the first seven years studied, there was an average of 6.4 incidents per year. However, in the last seven years, this annual average nearly tripled to 16.4 incidents per year. Although there are many law-abiding citizens who use guns responsibly, there are plenty who use this freedom against us. American citizens are usually the perpetrators of these shooting rampages, often times using... Read More Posted by Jennifer Flores on Feb 11, 2016 MOVING THE CHAINS: WHY EMPLOYEE STATUS FOR COLLEGE ATHLETES IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THEIR PROTECTION by Patrick Prager As a group whose efforts generate large amounts of revenue, the “student-athlete” is surprisingly uncompensated and unprotected In 2013, because of the efforts of student-athletes, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (the NCAA), the body governing college athletics, generated revenues nearing $900 million dollars. Although the student-athlete’s on-field work leads to these revenues, student-athletes are not considered university employees and, as such, are not afforded the protections that come with that designation under the National Labor Relations Act (“the NLRA”). Rather, in exchange for a scholarship (plus room and board), athletes dedicate large amounts of time to their sport and coaching staffs control their social and academic lives. Student-athletes work more than forty hours a week, limiting their ability to truly realize the university experience or fully dedicate themselves to their academic work. But because they are students and not employees, they have not been allowed to collectively bargain, stripping them of the ability to fight for fewer work hours, compensation for the use of their own images, or even worker’s compensation. Schools are exploiting student-athletes. High-level athletes are always in danger of injury, but are never eligible for workman’s compensation to protect them if they become disabled by their on-field efforts. Additionally, athletes’ scholarships may not be guaranteed, aid packages may not be properly constructed, and they may not receive adequate academic support. These athletes fill stadiums, and bring in millions in TV revenue, jersey sales, and alumni donations. They should be entitled to the fruits of their labor, or at least be protected from the dangers of it. Some students at Northwestern University felt similarly and, through an organization called the College Athletes Players Association (CAPA), sued Northwestern for employee status. The regional National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) granted them employee status, and Northwestern appealed it to the National NLRB headquarters.photo6 In the wake of the Regional Board’s decision, the NCAA’s Board of Directors adopted a new Division 1 structure. It reorganized itself and provided autonomy to its five largest conferences, commonly known as the Power 5. The Power 5 conferences met in January 2015 at the NCAA Convention and revolutionized the lives of college athletes. The Power 5 convention committee met athlete demands in some areas: guaranteeing four-year scholarships; increasing cost-of-attendance formulas to give athletes what amounts to a $5,000 stipend; raising requirements to return to play after concussion like symptoms; and allowing star athletes to take out insurance against their future earnings, so... Read More Posted by Jennifer Flores on Feb 9, 2016 A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS: THE ANTI-REVENGE PORN ACT by Taryn Pahigian Imagine one morning, after you grab your usual iced latte and are waiting for the 7 train to head to work on Madison Avenue, you check your Twitter and decide to peak at your ex-boyfriend’s Twitter account. You unexpectedly find a naked photo of yourself on his page. Although it may be shocking, this scenario is not far-fetched in today’s digital world. In fact, this happened to Adriana Batch. Adriana’s ex-boyfriend posted nude photos of her on Twitter. To make matters worse, he also sent the photos directly to her sister and employer. Adriana’s boyfriend engaged in what is known as revenge porn, and New York’s first revenge porn case ended with no punishment to the perpetrator. Revenge porn is non-consensual pornography. In other words, it is the distribution of sexually graphic images of individuals without their consent, and it includes images obtained both with and without consent. Revenge porn encompasses three typical situations. First, the nonconsensual distribution could be of a photo taken or created by the victim. This is known as a “selfie.” Second, the perpetrator could distribute a photo without the consent of the person depicted, but that he initially created with that person’s consent. Third, the photo distributed could be one stolen from the victim as a result of hacking. Regardless of the manner with which the image is created, the result remains the same. A person’s intimate image, created, and sometimes shared, with the reasonable expectation of privacy, is exploited through nonconsensual distribution. Revenge porn is harmful to the victims. According to a study called, Love, Relationships, and Technology, one in ten ex-partners threatened to expose risqué photos of their ex-partners online, and 60% of those who threatened to expose intimate photos followed through with their threats. Victims of revenge porn have reportedly lost jobs, been forced to change schools, changed their names, and have been subjected to real-life stalking and harassment. Some victims have even committed suicide. To illustrate the harms victims suffer, consider the story of Amanda Todd, a victim of revenge porn. Amanda committed suicide at age 15, after years of cyber bullying that all started after a photo of her naked breasts was distributed over the Internet. After electronically communicating with a man on Facebook, he flattered the vulnerable young girl enough to persuade her to flash her naked breasts on her web camera. Not realizing the man on the other end of the computer was recording the intimate... Read More Posted by Jennifer Flores on Feb 3, 2016 KEEPING THE “BENEFIT” IN BENEFIT CORPORATIONS: HOW AND WHY NEW YORK STATE SHOULD CONTINUE TO FOSTER AND DEVELOP BENEFIT CORPORATION LEGISLATION by Frank J. Tantone A corporation’s director leans back in his chair as he meets with his fellow directors. He surveys the New York City skyline stretched across the windows of the conference room and begins discussing possible options for the corporation to pursue. This corporation is not deciding whether to offer new stock options to its shareholders. In fact, it is not even deciding on a new methodology to maximize shareholder wealth at all. There are no hiring or firing decisions to be made in this meeting; no cunning ploys at achieving some sort of tax break; and no promotion of a new advertising campaign. Perhaps this corporation will provide more jobs to underemployed areas of the community; or maybe it will create sustainable energy. As a result, this corporation will create a general public benefit by making a material positive impact on society and the environment. This corporation is a benefit corporation. New York recently adopted this exponentially growing national trend when its benefit corporation legislation was signed on December 12, 2011. It now has several dozen benefit corporations operating within the state. New York State should continue to facilitate the growth of benefit corporations through statutory amendments to its business corporation laws and recognition of important policy justifications behind these novel business models. In turn, these corporations will yield positive results, both socially and economically, in New York’s unique socio-economic landscape. Specifically, the inclusion of educational and cultural social good as statutorily permissible pursuits of benefit corporations will result in more corporations tackling these issues. The Introduction of Benefit Corporation Legislation in the United States Benefit Corp Information Center Currently, 31 states have enacted such legislation, with several others proposing for it to be passed in the near future. The rise of benefit corporation legislation in the United States has generated state-specific requirements of what it means to be a “benefit corporation.” Part of the rationale behind having state-specific legislation is that the enacting state’s statutes can be inserted into existing state corporation laws. As a result, the state’s existing corporations laws, along with these new and unique benefit corporation laws, may apply to benefit corporations. In addition, it allows for a more seamless transition into having benefit corporations included into a certain state’s unique legal, economic, and social landscape. What is a Benefit Corporation? Defined broadly, a benefit corporation is a classification of corporation, in which the entity voluntarily takes on the responsibility of... Read More Posted by Jennifer Flores on Feb 1, 2016 The Most Discriminatory Laws You’ve Never Heard Of by Ryan Matthews The Supreme Court recently decided in favor of same-sex marriage in the long awaited case of Obergefell v. Hodges. As a supporter of LGBT rights, this decision makes me uneasy. I worry this decision will be seen as the end of the gay rights movement. Mission accomplished, time to go home. The gay rights movement has been so focused on marriage rights that other discriminatory laws have been overlooked or ignored. My hope is that instead, the decision will be a stepping stone towards eradicating these laws across the nation. No Promo Homo laws are the most discriminatory laws you’ve never heard of. Hidden in education laws, No Promo Homo laws restrict the promotion of homosexuality in public school classrooms by prohibiting teaching of homosexuality or outright requiring its condemnation. They exist in eight states: Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah. For example, the Utah Code requires the state board of education to prohibit instruction in the “advocacy of homosexuality”. An even more egregious law in Texas requires teachers to state that homosexuality is “not an acceptable lifestyle and is a criminal offense”. Appallingly, Texas cites the very penal law found unconstitutional in the landmark Lawrence v. Texas case in 2003. It is clear some states disagree and resist homosexual rights even 10 years after the Lawrence decision. These states have still found a way to keep their discriminatory laws on the books. By hiding these laws in education bills, states are taking advantage of the broad discretion given to them in the arena of education. These laws have become the states’ last avenue for spreading anti-gay beliefs. Already many states have amended or proposed legislation to increase the scope of their no promo homo laws in the wake of same-sex marriage. Utah for example, recently had their same-sex marriage ban struck down in the case of Kitchen v. Herbert. While the litigation was pending, a Utah representative rallied to pass House Bill 363, which expands their no promo homo prohibition to forbid the “instruction in, as well as the advocacy of homosexuality”. Teachers would be barred from even recognizing homosexual students. The bill was ultimately vetoed on separate grounds but will likely be presented again with minor changes. Alabama recently attempted to extend their no promo homo law in a significant way. The amendment would have banned any conversation of homosexuality in schools, effectively erasing the students who identify as... Read More Posted by Jennifer Flores on Jan 28, 2016 Delivering Gideon: Giving Birth to Humane Immigration Laws. by Makousse Ilboudo “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.” – Emma Lazarus “We don’t detain pregnant women.” That was the initial response of an El Paso, Texas immigration detention center officer back in 2013 when asked about the number of pregnant detainees in immigration detention centers, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. This was obviously false because in response to a Fusion.net Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request regarding pregnant women detained, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agency provided data that 13 pregnant women were detained in Texas and at least 559 were detained in six facilities throughout the U.S. since 2012. Pregnant detainees may be shackled, and sometimes even forced to give birth while shackled, depending on the state. This still occurs despite an official 2010 ICE policy that states pregnant women “shall not be restrained absent truly extraordinary circumstances,” and “restraints are never permitted on women who are in active labor or delivery.” The reality is that hundreds of pregnant women, detained at the border who have not committed heinous crimes, are subjected to inhumane treatment, and are held in detention for months at a time. During this time, they do not receive appropriate prenatal care. They have limited access to programming or activities appropriate for their conditions, and they are subject to routine strip searches and are shackled during transport. The worst part of their ordeal is that unless they can afford it, they have no legal recourse to express their grief as they do not have access to legal representation. Essentially, they are treated like criminals but are denied the most fundamental right a criminal defendant has under the Sixth Amendment: assistance of court appointed counsel. The Sixth Amendment provides for the “assistance of counsel” for an indigent defendant in all criminal prosecutions. More than 50 years ago, the Supreme Court found in Gideon v. Wainwright an “obvious truth” that “any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.” By doing so, the Court recognized a constitutional right to counsel for criminal defendants who lack the means to hire an attorney on their own. The Court deemed this right as the backbone of the American judicial system because... Read More Posted by Jennifer Flores on Nov 2, 2015 Time For A Change: The NFL’s Non-existent Policies on Human Trafficking During the Super Bowl By: Christina Campolo Human trafficking is the illegal movement of people, typically for the purposes of forced labor or commercial sexual exploitation. For example, imagine a young girl, being kidnapped off the street, drugged by pimps, and sold for sex. Sex trafficking is prevalent around major sporting events like the Super Bowl. In fact, on February 2, 2015, the evening after the Super Bowl, Football Hall of Famer Warren Sapp was arrested in Arizona for allegedly soliciting a prostitute and assaulting two women. According to reports, Sapp was at a bar at the Renaissance Hotel in downtown Phoenix where he started talking to two women (ages 23 and 24). Sapp invited the two women to his hotel room. While in his room, Sapp threw $100 bills at the women as they danced for him. After his arrest, Sapp reported to the police that he paid $300 to each woman for sexual acts and that he had recorded the events on his phone. According to Sapp, the 23-year-old performed oral sex on him, while the 24-year-old hid in the bathroom. Sapp and the 23-year-old argued about money and Sapp grabbed her by her arms. During the argument, the 24-year-old came out of the bathroom. Sapp threw the 23-year-old out of the room, knocking both women down. The police were called to the hotel on a noise disturbance complaint. At the time of his arrest, Sapp was working as a Network Analyst for the NFL. Sapp was fired from his job with the NFL network shortly thereafter. Although it may seem that the network’s reaction of firing Sapp sufficiently dealt with the issue, quite honestly it did not. The NFL failed to substantially address the issue by, (1) implementing policies against human trafficking; and (2) proactively raising awareness to prevent and combat human trafficking at the early stages. In the United States, Human Trafficking is the second most profitable business, second to narcotics, bringing in roughly $150 billion annually. The Super Bowl is known as the “single largest human trafficking incident in the United States.” During the Super Bowl, approximately 30,000 to 60,000 women in the United States are trafficked. In 2009, a young woman was advertised as a “Super Bowl special” during the Miami Super Bowl.” According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, in 2010, more than 10,000 women and girls were exploited and trafficked to Miami for the Super Bowl. In 2011, there was a reported... Read More News Congratulations to Christina Piecora, 2015 Recipient of the Justice Harold Birns Award Posted by Jennifer Flores on 6-20-15 Congratulations: Christen Giannaros Posted by Omar Subat on 2-26-15 Congratulations: Ayanna Thomas Posted by Omar Subat on 2-26-15 Congratulations Ashley Varnado Posted by Omar Subat on 2-26-15 More From News Recent Blog Posts Burwell v. Hobby Lobby: The Dangers of Protecting First Amendment Rights of Corporations & The Rapid Expansion of “Corporate Personhood” Posted by Jennifer Flores on 2-24-16 American Society and Gun Control Posted by Jennifer Flores on 2-17-16 MOVING THE CHAINS: WHY EMPLOYEE STATUS FOR COLLEGE ATHLETES IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THEIR PROTECTION Posted by Jennifer Flores on 2-11-16 A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS: THE ANTI-REVENGE PORN ACT Posted by Jennifer Flores on 2-9-16 More From Blog Issues Volume 27, Issue 1 Posted by JCRED Blog Editor on 12-20-13 Volume 26, Issue 4 Posted by JCRED Blog Editor on 12-20-13 Volume 26, Issue 3 Posted by JCRED Blog Editor on 12-19-13 Volume 26, Issue 2 Posted by JCRED Blog Editor on 12-18-13 More From Issues Most Recent Articles Burwell v. Hobby Lobby: The Dangers of Protecting First Amendment Rights of Corporations & The Rapid Expansion of “Corporate Personhood” Posted by Jennifer Flores on Feb 24, 2016 in Blog | 0 comments by Katharine Suominen Imagine Occupy Wall Street protests break out again, but this time, the mayor directs the NYPD to let the protesters stay in various private public spaces, like the lobby of a corporate office building. Barclays decides that it does not want to risk bloody confrontations between its own security guards and the occupiers. Instead, it releases a specially programmed fleet of drones to direct air or sound at the occupiers until they leave the premises. New York’s city council then proposes legislation to ban the corporate use of drones. Barclays decides to challenge the ordinance as an unconstitutional restriction on its corporate right of self-defense. The Supreme Court agrees with the corporation and extends Second Amendment rights to all corporations. This hypothetical may seem dramatic and highly unlikely, but it is actually not that farfetched. In recent years, the Supreme Court has vastly expanded the constitutional rights of corporations. Traditionally, constitutional rights were reserved for individuals; however, over time courts began to consider corporations “persons,” a sort of legal fiction, and extend constitutional rights to them. This was the beginning of the legal concept known as “corporate personhood.” The Expansion of Corporate Personhood Corporate personhood began with the extension of contract rights to corporations, but corporate personhood slowly expanded as corporations... Read More American Society and Gun Control Posted by Jennifer Flores on Feb 17, 2016 in Blog | 1 comment by Thomas C. Giordano In recent years, Americans have been murdered in mass shootings at an alarming and increasing rate. While mass shootings are always devastating, regrettably, they are nothing new to Americans. Gun violence actually seems to be an accepted part of American culture. In the wake of a mass shooting, there is sadness. Following this sadness is outrage and almost always a call for reform. Unfortunately, nothing ever actually happens. The horrific event is over, and the news picks up the next compelling story that grips the nation. People move on. That is, everybody except the victims’ loved ones. There has been some federal legislation over the last century aimed at restricting access to guns, but not much. One reason for this is that gun legislation is often passed in response to shooting tragedies, which occur sporadically and do not affect entire groups of people on a daily basis. Therefore, it is difficult to apply sustained political pressure for change. Another challenge is the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence. The Supreme Court’s broad interpretation of the Second Amendment has made it almost impossible to tighten gun laws. However, as illustrated by the Civil Rights movement, the American people possess great power in influencing the law. Supreme Court decisions and jurisprudence can change... Read More MOVING THE CHAINS: WHY EMPLOYEE STATUS FOR COLLEGE ATHLETES IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THEIR PROTECTION Posted by Jennifer Flores on Feb 11, 2016 in Blog | 0 comments by Patrick Prager As a group whose efforts generate large amounts of revenue, the “student-athlete” is surprisingly uncompensated and unprotected In 2013, because of the efforts of student-athletes, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (the NCAA), the body governing college athletics, generated revenues nearing $900 million dollars. Although the student-athlete’s on-field work leads to these revenues, student-athletes are not considered university employees and, as such, are not afforded the protections that come with that designation under the National Labor Relations... Read More A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS: THE ANTI-REVENGE PORN ACT Posted by Jennifer Flores on Feb 9, 2016 in Blog | 1 comment by Taryn Pahigian Imagine one morning, after you grab your usual iced latte and are waiting for the 7 train to head to work on Madison Avenue, you check your Twitter and decide to peak at your ex-boyfriend’s Twitter account. You unexpectedly find a naked photo of yourself on his page. Although it may be shocking, this scenario is not far-fetched in today’s digital world. In fact, this happened to Adriana Batch. Adriana’s ex-boyfriend posted nude photos of her on... Read More KEEPING THE “BENEFIT” IN BENEFIT CORPORATIONS: HOW AND WHY NEW YORK STATE SHOULD CONTINUE TO FOSTER AND DEVELOP BENEFIT CORPORATION LEGISLATION Posted by Jennifer Flores on Feb 3, 2016 in Blog | 0 comments by Frank J. Tantone A corporation’s director leans back in his chair as he meets with his fellow directors. He surveys the New York City skyline stretched across the windows of the conference room and begins discussing possible options for the corporation to pursue. This corporation is not deciding whether to offer new stock options to its shareholders. In fact, it is not even deciding on a new methodology to maximize shareholder wealth at all. There are no hiring... Read More The Most Discriminatory Laws You’ve Never Heard Of Posted by Jennifer Flores on Feb 1, 2016 in Blog | 0 comments by Ryan Matthews The Supreme Court recently decided in favor of same-sex marriage in the long awaited case of Obergefell v. Hodges. As a supporter of LGBT rights, this decision makes me uneasy. I worry this decision will be seen as the end of the gay rights movement. Mission accomplished, time to go home. The gay rights movement has been so focused on marriage rights that other discriminatory laws have been overlooked or ignored. My hope is that instead,... Read More Delivering Gideon: Giving Birth to Humane Immigration Laws. Posted by Jennifer Flores on Jan 28, 2016 in Blog | 1 comment by Makousse Ilboudo “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.” – Emma Lazarus “We don’t detain pregnant women.” That was the initial response of an El Paso, Texas immigration detention center officer back in 2013 when asked about the number of pregnant detainees in immigration detention centers, according to the American... Read More ? Older Entries Menu Home News Issues Blog Subscribe About Membership Roster 2016-2017 Faculty Advisors Contact Us Subscribe to Blog via Email Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email. Email Address Designed by Elegant WordPress Themes | Powered by WordPress Home News Issues Blog Subscribe About Contact Us Feed

jcred.org Whois

Domain Name: JCRED.ORG
Domain ID: D168584657-LROR
WHOIS Server:
Referral URL: http://www.PublicDomainRegistry.com
Updated Date: 2016-04-01T13:41:49Z
Creation Date: 2013-05-01T15:31:56Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2017-05-01T15:31:56Z
Sponsoring Registrar: PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 303
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Registrant ID: PP-SP-001
Registrant Name: Domain Admin
Registrant Organization: Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org
Registrant Street: C/O ID#10760, PO Box 16
Registrant Street: Note - Visit PrivacyProtect.org
Registrant Street: to contact the domain owner/operator
Registrant City: Nobby Beach
Registrant State/Province: Queensland
Registrant Postal Code: QLD 4218
Registrant Country: AU
Registrant Phone: +45.36946676
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: contact@privacyprotect.org
Admin ID: PP-SP-001
Admin Name: Domain Admin
Admin Organization: Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org
Admin Street: C/O ID#10760, PO Box 16
Admin Street: Note - Visit PrivacyProtect.org
Admin Street: to contact the domain owner/operator
Admin City: Nobby Beach
Admin State/Province: Queensland
Admin Postal Code: QLD 4218
Admin Country: AU
Admin Phone: +45.36946676
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax:
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: contact@privacyprotect.org
Tech ID: PP-SP-001
Tech Name: Domain Admin
Tech Organization: Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org
Tech Street: C/O ID#10760, PO Box 16
Tech Street: Note - Visit PrivacyProtect.org
Tech Street: to contact the domain owner/operator
Tech City: Nobby Beach
Tech State/Province: Queensland
Tech Postal Code: QLD 4218
Tech Country: AU
Tech Phone: +45.36946676
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax:
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email: contact@privacyprotect.org
Name Server: NS7.NIXIHOST.COM
Name Server: NS8.NIXIHOST.COM
DNSSEC: unsigned
>>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2016-10-04T01:27:51Z <<<
For more information on Whois status codes, please visit https://icann.org/epp
Access to Public Interest Registry WHOIS information is provided to assist persons in determining the contents of a domain name registration record in the Public Interest Registry registry database. The data in this record is provided by Public Interest Registry for informational purposes only, and Public Interest Registry does not guarantee its accuracy. This service is intended only for query-based access. You agree that you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this data to(a) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission by e-mail, telephone, or facsimile of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other than the data recipient's own existing customers; or (b) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that send queries or data to the systems of Registry Operator, a Registrar, or Afilias except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations. All rights reserved. Public Interest Registry reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting this query, you agree to abide by this policy